Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday May 26, 2011 @11:39AM
from the please-kill-me dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Dr. Jeffrey H. Toney writes that a team of biomedical engineers at the University of Pittsburgh led by Henry Zeringue have managed to grow an active brain in a dish, complete with memories by culturing brain cells capable of forming networks, complete with biological signals. To produce the models, the Pitt team stamped adhesive proteins onto silicon discs. Once the proteins were cultured and dried, cultured hippocampus cells from embryonic rats were fused to the proteins and then given time to grow and connect to form a natural network. The researchers disabled the cells' inhibitory response and excited the neurons with an electrical pulse which were then able to sustain the resulting burst of network activity for up to what in neuronal time is 12 long seconds compared to the natural duration of .25 seconds. The ability of the brain to hold information 'online' long after an initiating stimulus is a hallmark of brain areas such as the prefrontal cortex. The team will next work to understand the underlying factors that govern network communication and stimulation, such as the various electrical pathways between cells and the genetic makeup of individual cells. 'This is amazing,' writes Toney. 'I wonder what the "memory" could be — could be a good subject for a science fiction story.'"

I agree, geez, I'm usually Captain Science and Progress before all things Religious, but I wonder if this "brain" was in any way "conscious" for that short period of time? Or am I misunderstanding what was achieved here?

It's hardly a brain and certainly not a complete one. It's more like a (presumably basic) approximation of the neural networks cells in the brain form in order to preserve stimuli. It's less a conscious memory being stored and more the raw sensory input.

I agree, geez, I'm usually Captain Science and Progress before all things Religious, but I wonder if this "brain" was in any way "conscious" for that short period of time? Or am I misunderstanding what was achieved here?

Religion isn't the owner of morality. It's merely a definition of morality.

You misunderstand what Gandhi is I think. One of his most famous quotes is "I am a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, and a Jew". He believed in a brotherhood of man - not the dominance of one particular religion over another. That is very different from being a religious leader and forcing your doctrine on others.

It's more like a set of rules meant to apply some people's version of morality to others. I don't know that you could really call it morality if the only thing stopping you from cheating on your wife is that you are told that God wouldn't like it.

The definition of conscience is as far as I'm also vague as to whether that is intelligence like a humans, an intelligence on the level of a human, or an intelligence on the level of animals. I mean for example that several animals like for example Elephants are self-aware and emotional crea

well, yes, all of those debates will be started by those, who are in possession of non-functional brains.

I think that's a little unfair. Personally, if I just so happened to be a brain grown in a lab, I don't think I'd like someone poking around in me.

Sure, it's science fiction now. But is the idea of growing in a lab a fully functioning and conscious human brain, complete with its own distinct memories, really so far outside the realm of possibility that anyone debating how we should treat such a brain must be an idiot?

I think that's a little unfair. Personally, if I just so happened to be a brain grown in a lab, I don't think I'd like someone poking around in me.

- and?

Rights are there to establish what a government (the collective) can do to you and what cannot be done to you by the government. If you are some brain matter grown in a petri dish - good luck negotiating the terms of the government either leaving your alone there, and not using you for some purpose, such as a piece of functional equipment to fly ICBMs with nuclear bombs on them for more precise targeting, or getting some sort of gov't protection, so you can't legally be grown and pocked into by whoev

huh? I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or making pun or what. Creating artificial life definitely has moral and philosophical implications that are probably impossible to resolve, but a lot of people enjoy debating them.

yes, only an idiot would be concerned about morality and philosophy relating to how we treat man-made consciousness, just like only an idiot is concerned about robot 'rights'. AFAIC, the concept of rights is also completely misunderstood by these very idiots, who don't see that the only context, in which 'rights' make sense is how the individual right is protected against government intrusion upon those ideas, nothing else.

The only context, in which 'rights' make sense is the stand between the individual a

Rights are not just capable of being violated by the government, government is an evil we need to help preserve our rights from each other. Or is kidnapping you and making you eat your own feces not a violation of human rights? Can I do that with a clone? What if a biological entity brewed in a tube is identical to one made out of a semen and eggs salad tossed in a womb, can I legally (or even just is it possible to) rape it? If you and I get in a sissy bitch fight and you scrape some of my skin cells from

That's a very materialistic/empiricist view to take towards a definition of rights. I'd interpret your position as "Might makes right" essentially. So let me ask you this: how far are you willing to take that worldview? Are you willing to espouse it up until you end up on the wrong side of a gun?

Or maybe a gun is a little extreme. How about this: how strongly will you cling to your conviction that rights only matter in terms of the individual vs the collective when debating governmental permissions, when

Right is only between the individual and the collective. All these small headed dumb asses here are mixing up the rights vs the criminal code, and the criminal code can be different from place to place, there is competition at least based on what criminal code says about various 'criminal' acts, it's all relative morality.

As to being in a minority while negotiating with the government - at least this was understood during the time US Constitution was established, since USA was never a direct democracy, but

so if I understand you correctly, then rights are merely enforceable agreements 'not' to do something entered into by two or more distinct parties, and only occur when both parties have enough power to be able to state and hold their position (but one party is distinctly less powerful than the other and therefore must rely on the mercy, largess, or discinclination of the more powerful party to expend resources towards extermination and domination). Am I getting the general gist?

The government is not allowed to deprive you of live, liberty, property, ability to do business, any of that at least without due process.

All this notion of positive rights: where you get the right to eat or to own a house or to get an education, guaranteed by the government, it's all nonsense. Those rights turn others into slaves of the system, not necessarily in the exact manner that Rand Paul expressed - forcing doctors to do their work, but instead by forcing the individua

The first thing I thought of when I saw this was the whale popping into existence in the sky in 'Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy'. Oh hey, this is great, what is this thing I'm in? I'll call it a petri dish...

We're getting closer and closer to really understanding how the brain works. Being able to actually make small networks in the lab is a pretty big deal. When we really start understanding this we'll be able to start doing the really cool stuff, like genetically modifying people to increase intelligence and adding direct computer interfaces. At the same time, this research shows that we have a long way to go before we get to that point, in that there's a lot happening with these cells that was unexpected and adds to the long list of things about the brain and neurons that we don't understand.

Please tell me the real, fundamental reason (ethics aside) it wouldn't be just as valid a scientific endeavor to forge ahead all at once without trying to understand every step and the implications of every signal. "we don't understand this yet" is not a reason to say we have a long way to go. All it would take is understanding of how to keep these cells alive and connecting, a large number of rat embryos, a clean room, and a scientist who doesn't care about his reputation to make a large working brain-in-a

Please tell me the real, fundamental reason (ethics aside) it wouldn't be just as valid a scientific endeavor to forge ahead all at once without trying to understand every step and the implications of every signal. "we don't understand this yet" is not a reason to say we have a long way to go. All it would take is understanding of how to keep these cells alive and connecting, a large number of rat embryos, a clean room, and a scientist who doesn't care about his reputation to make a large working brain-in-a-lab and I think we have all of that.

We don't know enough to even try this. You can't just stick a lot of brain cells together like that. They would need blood vessels to supply them with oxygen, and would need glial cells to provide physical support, and if you had a random mishmash of brain cells, it is unlikely to do anything.

At the same time, this research shows that we have a long way to go before we get to that point, in that there's a lot happening with these cells that was unexpected and adds to the long list of things about the brain and neurons that we don't understand.

Exactly.

I think it's pretty funny seeing studies which talk about which areas of the brain being having more blood flow under certain conditions (using fMRI to measure), then the authors of the study trying to made grand statements about what is happening using just that information, when they really have very little clue what is happening. It's like judging a computer by saying "look, now this area is drawing more power!". You might be able to figure out that one part does graphics, one does sound, one doe

It's like trying to cure mental problems by giving someone a bunch of electric shocks rather than actually dealing with the root problem. Pretty barbaric.

Actually Electroconvulsive therapy isn't anything like the images conjured up by popular culture, where most people have their image of the procedure based entirely on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. It is useful and helps many people live far more normal and happier lives than they would have otherwise faced.

I didn't say it doesn't help sometimes, but it's still pretty barbaric/crude/simplistic. As the page you link to says: "its mode of action is unknown". It's kind of like the generic IT fix - have you tried turning it off and on again? It might fix the problem, but it would be nice to know what the original cause was to make sure it won't happen again.

Taking that a step further, just think where we were with computers and communications only 10, 20, 30, 50 years ago and think of the possibilities something like this could spark in the next 20 years.

Perhaps not quite with the level of understanding that that would seem to imply (at least to me), but a memory of an unpleasant experience was certainly my first thought as well. But then I remembered how I'd heard long ago that the brain cannot feel pain [google.com].

According to the brain, "The first ten minutes were the worst, and the second ten minutes, they were the worst too. The third ten minutes I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline." Apparently, the best conversation he'd had was over 40 minutes ago, and that was with a coffee machine.

I know, that's what I meant. I don't like the Marvin in the film and I find Zaphod in the film really annoying:(

Although, in the recent continuation of the radio series, Stephen Moore could not recreate the Marvin voice quite the same which I found a weenie bit... well, not annoying, it just got to me a bit. I guess it's hard when your vocal chords are that much older:) - or they lost the parameters for the old hardware that modified his voice...

Marvin I can agree with you, his attitude is close enough that it still feels genuine and the 'futuristic' body plan and color had the dual payoff of being more modern and throwing his depression into contrast.

Goethe, wrote the Faust story most of us are familiar with. He also wrote a second part. In part 2 there is a homunculus, which is basically a mind that floats around in a test tube. He spends a lot of time wondering why he exists and if, indeed, he should exist.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust:_The_Second_Part_of_the_Tragedy [wikipedia.org]

I am guessing that, if we do create conscious minds in a test tube, those minds will suffer a lot of angst. Maybe even the majority of our thinking processes are moderated by our physical limitations and by our hormones. Could we live in a test tube without going insane?

The thing is that it seems the neuroses and psychoses of sensory deprivation are generally catalyzed by loss, not lack. When you look at things like the 'Total Isolation' experiment [wikipedia.org] there are obvious signs of mental distress even to the point of regression/debilitation. However, these same symptoms do not occur in the congenitally blind. The congenitally blind don't see things that aren't there because they don't have any experiential reference for 'seeing' in the first place. Nor do they have any inherent

I am guessing that, if we do create conscious minds in a test tube, those minds will suffer a lot of angst. Maybe even the majority of our thinking processes are moderated by our physical limitations and by our hormones. Could we live in a test tube without going insane?

If we could precisely replicate a human brain and grow it in a jar and didn't somehow give it an artificial world to inhabit -- a robotic body, the Matrix, anything -- it would be profoundly non-functional. Angst wouldn't come into it, insanity wouldn't come into it. It wouldn't become nearly clever enough to go insane. Consider what happens with a so-called "feral" child, usually a kid raised in profound isolation, like being locked in a closet or something. That child at least has sensory inputs, has some control of a body, has experienced eating and breathing, and on and on. And yet even when given good care later in life they very rarely learn to walk correctly, become toilet trained, understand basic human expressions, and so on. They barely function as humans. Now imagine a brain with no sensory inputs at all, maybe at most nervous sensations of whatever growth fluid it is suspended in, along with the occasional jolts of electricity sent by the researchers. Would it even be able to think in a way we'd remotely call human? It would have no purchase on anything with which to build a concept of the world, of anything, even of how to go about the process of thinking. It would be a hunk of meat with a few interesting capabilities.

We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

In the television show Quantum Leap, the main character Sam is 'guided' by Al who uses a sentient supercomputer named Ziggy. If I remember correctly, Ziggy was a project that Sam was involved in which melded human neural cells with silicon to create a super-awesome computer capable of computing probabilities and helping Sam figure out what to do next.

I and others have noted that sometimes stories end up in the wrong place. I personally have had it happen when I've not had multiple tabs open to confuse issues. If only I could economically record my screen in a loop.